3 ms·
No, I can have both. For 8 years, they've tried a bunch of different things that they thought would work. Literally none of them did. And then in a matter of we
by jaywalk 5y ago
No, I can have both. For 8 years, they've tried a bunch of different things that they thought would work. Literally none of them did. And then in a matter of weeks, they figured the whole thing out.
Obviously they didn't start from zero. But it wasn't like they had something from, say, 2018 that was looking promising but just hadn't made it all the way through trials yet. They had nothing but failures.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThey spent eight years iterating their technology. The idea that they had nothing but already-failed candidates at the start of the pandemic is simply false. Their 10-K from the end of 2019: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000006/moderna10-k12312019.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220... > We have a diverse pipeline of 24 development candidates, 12 of which are currently in clinical trials, and many of which have the potential to be first-in-class or best-in-class medicines. All of this is a bit academic, anyways. We've plenty of evidence the Moderna vaccine works. You can quibble over the exact rate of rare side effects a little, but it's abundantly clear it's good at reducing deaths and severe disease in the vaccinated population.
- newrotik 5y agoModerna use has been suspended for individuals <30y in several Scandinavian countries due to its side effects. The point discussed is not whether it works or not, but what are the actual safety parameters.
- ceejayoz 5y agoNo, they're saying "Making a breakthrough in a matter of weeks that couldn't be found for 8 years is incredibly hard to believe". That's not a "Pfizer's is slightly safer in 30+ males and should be used preferentially in that population if both are available" safety quibble.